Should we and the
As I write this over lunch the debate rages.
I cannot blame anyone for being cynical after Blair’s ‘dodgy dossier’ but should we really let that bad experience dictate what happens in this particular crisis?
With the chemical weapon attack in
But – in which direction does the weight of evidence lay?
Who might be desperate enough to carry out such an attack?
What does the best available intelligence say? Here must be no ‘dodgy dossier’ here.
I, like all of you, will not be party to all that evidence and much of it will never be made public for security reasons.
But from what we do know there is good reason to believe that this was done by Assad’s forces with or without his orders.
So, should the West just stand by while more innocent Syrians are killed in such a terrible way?
Have we not a moral duty to do all we can to help the innocent?
So what are our options?
More talk perhaps as innocents die?
Diplomatic channels – well yes certainly. After all Winston Churchill once said jaw jaw is better than war war. But Churchill also knew that there are times when jaw jaw is not enough and war war is the only answer.
Sanctions? Well does anyone really think that sanctions can work? After all it will not be Assad and his elite who will starve and he will make sure his army remains well fed. It would be ordinary people who starve. These take time, time during which Assad would tighten his grip and tens of thousands more innocents die.
So what is left?
A surgical strike against the chemical weapons facilities and other military targets is one answer. Perhaps a ‘no fly zone’ and/or other restrictions to prevent the movement of armour and artillery might be possible. All of this falls short of ‘boots on the ground’ – something that would be a step too far for the West.
Yes some innocent people will be ‘collateral damage’ to use the horrible term. But how many will go on to die if we do not act?
The next question really is who should take military action
and should the
First of all the number of countries that have the
capability to do this and to minimise ‘collateral damage’ are few and the
A lot has been expected of our armed forces in the past and,
lets face it, they have been let down by governments time after time. Undervalued, underpaid, underfunded and often
under-equipped, yet our professional armed forces always deliver. It is their job to protect the people and interests
of the
But is it in the interests of the
I would say that it is very much in
I believe that it is in all our interests for the
We should do what is right and participate in well-judged surgical action against Assad with clear objectives set out and no ‘mission creep’.
There is little for us to be proud of in this country but our armed forces we can most certainly take pride in. They are among the best in the world despite the many problems politicians inflict on them. Let them do the job that they are so good at and protect the innocent.
Then perhaps we should think about how we can better support, fund, equip and man our armed forces for the future and, as yet, unknown dangers.